Fed. Cir.
September 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R On July 31, 2026, Massoud Heidary filed an appeal from the January 8, 2026 order of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Maryland dismissing his com- plaint. In response to this court’s order to show cause regarding timeliness, Amazon.com Inc. and Ring, LLC urge dismissal. Mr. Heidary submits a response, which this court construes as his opposition to dismissal. 2 HEIDARY v. AMAZON.COM INC.
Fed. Cir.
September 21, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R Upon consideration of the joint motion to remand for further proceedings, stating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on a reference that was not prior art in reject- ing certain patent application claims, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for further consideration consistent with the motion and this order. 2 IN RE GOMEZ (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Fed. Cir.
September 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
This is a cross-appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, concerning (1) the district court’s order staying and severing four counts of a five-count complaint, with each of Counts I–IV alleging direct infringement, (2) summary judgment of pa- tent eligibility, (3) summary judgment of no indirect in- fringement under the fifth count, and (4) subsequent dismissal of Counts I–IV in light of the summary judgment of no indirect infringement under Count V.
E.D. Tex.
September 18, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Rule 12(b) (6) Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Lee Hecht Harrison LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 22).1 Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Calibrate Networks LLC (“Plaintiff”) (together with Defendant, the “Parties”) filed the above-captioned case against Defendant on October 28, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No.
E.D. Tex.
September 18, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants ’ Motion For Exceptional Case (Dkt. No. 270). In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff AlexSam Inc’s positions regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (the “’608 Patent”) warrant sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because they are “exceptional.” The Court having found that this case stands out among all the cases the Court has been assigned in more than 30 years, the motion is hereby GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. The Patent and this Litigation On March 18, 2020, AlexSam filed the present lawsuit.
Fed. Cir.
September 18, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NICOLE RICHARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS C. KALLISH, EVERYONE'S EARTH, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2026-2022 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 7:22-cv-09095-CS- VR, Senior Judge Cathy Seibel.
Fed. Cir.
September 17, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corpora- tion sued Fenix Diamonds LLC for infring ing two patents directed to methods for making lab -grown diamonds. The district court granted summary judgment of non -infringe- ment for both patents, and Carnegie and M7D appealed to this court. During the appeal, the parties entered a con- sent stipulation of dismissal and the action returned to the district court to address issues related to Fenix’s claim for attorney fees and expenses.
Fed. Cir.
September 17, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Incept LLC (“Incept”) appeals the Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board’s decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/886,099 (“the ’099 application”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 103. Ex parte Bean, No. 2024-003619, 2024 WL 5193610, at *5–8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2024) (“Decision”); Ex parte Bean, No. 2024-003619, 2025 WL 1329066 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2025) (“Decision Denying Rehearing”). For the reasons be- low, we vacate and remand. I.
Fed. Cir.
September 17, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corpora- tion sued Fenix Diamonds LLC for infringing two patents directed to methods for making lab-grown diamonds. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringe- ment for both patents, and Carnegie and M7D appealed to this court. During the appeal, the parties entered a con- sent stipulation of dismissal and the action returned to the district court to address issues related to Fenix’s claim for attorney fees and expenses.
E.D. Tex.
September 16, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court are two m otions: Defendant Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.’s (“Simon”) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ( Dkt. No. 444) and Defendant Blackhawk Network Inc.’s (“Blackhawk”) Motion for Fees and Sanctions (Dkt. No. 447). In the motions, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff AlexSam Inc’s positions regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (the “’608 Patent”) warrant sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, FED. R. CIV. P.
E.D. Tex.
September 15, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Intellectual Ventures to Produce Documents and Answer American’s Interrogatories (Dkt. # 161) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case.
Fed. Cir.
September 15, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(LOURIE, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 15, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
September 15, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(LOURIE, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 15, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
September 14, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Only a “patentee” may bring a civil action for patent in- fringement. 35 U.S.C. § 281. This case calls on us to again undertake the oftentimes complicated task of determining whether a license agreement conveyed a sufficient owner- ship interest to the licensee such that the agreement is tan- tamount to an assignment, thereby granting the licensee the right to maintain a lawsuit in its own name without joining the patent owner. Plaintiff-Appellant TexasLDPC Inc.
Fed. Cir.
September 14, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Nine Energy Service, Inc. (“Nine”) appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended final judgment ordering that (1) Nine had di- rectly infringed claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) Nine had induced in- fringement of claims 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 of the ’445 patent; (3) claims 28, 29, 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 (the “as- serted claims”) of the ’445 patent were not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (collec- tively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A.
Fed. Cir.
September 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
TCO Group AS (“TCO”) appeals the United States Dis- trict Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended fi- nal judgment ordering that (1) TCO had induced infringement of claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) TCO committed con- tributory infringement of claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 pa- tent; (3) claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 patent are not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (col- lectively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A. 39–41.
Fed. Cir.
September 11, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST, Circuit Judge, and BARKER, District Judge1). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 11, 2026 Date 1 Honorable J. Campbell Barker, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Fed. Cir.
September 11, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 11, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
September 11, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
AlterWAN, Inc. (“AlterWAN”) appeals from the stipu- lated final judgment of noninfringement of the U.S. Dis- trict Court for the District of Delaware favoring Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (to- gether, “Amazon”). AlterWAN challenges the district court’s claim-construction rulings, upon which the stipu- lated judgment rests, and the district court’s exclusion of AlterWAN’s damages expert. We affirm the district court’s claim constructions and thus do not reach the exclusion of AlterWAN’s expert. BACKGROUND U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
September 11, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Moskowitz Family LLC (“Moskowitz”) appeals from de- cisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Globus Medical, Inc.’s (“Globus”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, con- struing the term “universal,” and denying Moskowitz’s mo- tion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I The spine has three major regions: the cervical, lum- bar, and thoracic.
E.D. Tex.
September 10, 2026
Order
(CTO −12) On April 2, 2026, the Panel transferred 6 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3176, ECF No. 44 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, 85 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III.
Fed. Cir.
September 10, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Versata Software, LLC fka Trilogy Software, Inc.; Ver- sata Development Group, Inc. ; and Trilogy, LLC appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on damages for trade secret misappro- priation and breach of contract. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s judgment on trade secret dam- ages and remand for a new trial with instructions for the district court to consider two damages models it previously rejected.
Fed. Cir.
September 10, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
John Lewis Guymon Jr. appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir- ginia dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. For the reasons below, we affirm. I Mr. Guymon is the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,943,030, which claims a method for creating secure electronic documents that enable the protected exchange of information. Upon issuance, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded Mr. Guymon a patent term ad- justment (PTA) determination of 1,525 days pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
E.D. Tex.
September 9, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court are two Motions, Plaintiff’s M otion for Leave to S erve Supplemental Reports of D r. Martin G . Walker, and Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Withdraw its Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 178). Dkt. Nos. 183, 189. In the former Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve the supplemental report of its infringement expert, in light of updated representative products. Dkt. No. 183 at 1. In the latter Motion, Defendant seeks to withdraw its initial Motion to Strike New Infringement Opinions in the R ebuttal Expert Report of Dr .
E.D. Tex.
September 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion To Exclude the Supplemental Opinions of Plaintiff’s Experts (the “Motion”) file d by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., BambuLab Limited, BambuLab USA, Inc., Tuozhu Technology Limited, and BambuLab USA Inc. (collectively “Defendants” or “Bambu”). (Dkt. No. 404). In the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to strike the supplemental reports of Plaintiff Stratasys Inc. (“Plaintiff”)’s (together with Defendants, the “Parties”) expert witnesses, Dr. Gall, Dr. Osswald, and Mr. Kennedy. (Id.
E.D. Tex.
September 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendant Dental Direkt GmbH (“Defendant”)’s Motion To Exclude Improper Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Gary Fischman (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 189). In the Motion, Defendant ask the Court to strike the report of Plaintiff Tosoh Corporation (“Plaintiff”)’s (together with Defendants, the “Parties”) expert witness, Dr. Gary Fischman, based on the Court’s Memorandum Claim Construction Opinion and Order (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
September 8, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
______________________ MEGAN S. WOODWORTH, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by FRANK C. CIMINO, JR.; WILLIAM HECTOR, San Francisco, CA. ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, Greenberg Traurig LLP, McLean, VA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by VIVIAN KUO, Washington, DC. ______________________ 2 VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC. v. PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC. Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE, District Judge.1 MOORE, District Judge. Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) owns U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
September 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Biofer S.p.A. appeals a judgment of non-infringement entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On appeal, Biofer challenges the claim construction on which the judgment rests. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND On April 15, 2022, Biofer S.p.A. (“Biofer”) sued Vifor (International) AG (“Vifor”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,759,320 (“’320 patent”).
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Mrs. Elaine Vieth and her husband, Dr. Reinhold W. Vieth, appeal the September 10, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1 and 3–5 of the Vieths’ U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958 (“the ’958 patent”) are unpatentable. J.A. 1–108. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Netlist Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals from two consolidated fi- nal written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which together held unpatentable all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 (“’060 patent”) and 9,318,160 (“’160 patent”). We affirm. I A Netlist’s ’060 and ’160 patents generally relate to com- puter memory modules, such as the one depicted below. Appx10310. Some background about this technology is necessary to understand the parties’ dispute.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals two consolidated final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00996, 2023 WL 8525632 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) (“’918 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00999, 2023 WL 8446338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2023) (“’054 Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918 (“’918 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determin- ing all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 are unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we af- firm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 (the “’339 pa- tent”). The ’339 patent is directed to computer memory sys- tems, and more specifically to “improving the performance and the memory capacity of . . . memory boards that in- clude dual in-line memory modules.” J.A. 109 at 1:18–23.
E.D. Tex.
September 1, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff MeshDynamics’ Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Webex Meetings Survivability (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 82.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is “ relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
E.D. Tex.
August 31, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above -captioned case on May 27, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff Tosoh Corporation (“Tosoh”) and Defendant Dental Direkt GmbH (“Dental Direkt”) (together, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos. 90, 105, 114-19, 135, 163, 164.) This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions, MILs, and disputed exhibits as announced from the bench and read into the record, including additional instructions that were given to the Parties.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because th ose products were covered by a license .
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Precedential Opinion
This patent infringement case raises issues of eligibil- ity, infringement, and damages and relates to communica- tion systems that use non-uniform constellations that have increased capacity compared to conventional, uniform con- stellations operating within a similar signal-to-noise ratio band. Constellation Designs, LLC sued LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Ala- bama, Inc.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Precedential Opinion
MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharma- ceuticals, Inc. appeal the decision of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Delaware holding that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 11,091,439, 11,091,440, 11,098,015, and 11,298,349, which are owned by Exelixis, Inc., are not invalid. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s finding that the as- serted claims of the ’439, ’440, and ’015 patents have ade- quate written description pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 (the “’654 patent”) and 9,696,868 (the “’868 patent”), which relate to graphical user interfaces that allow a user to switch between applications by displaying images of applications in a three-dimensional space and, upon selection of an image, displaying the cor- responding application in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (the “’048 patent”), which relates to a graphical user interface that displays webpages as ob- jects in a three-dimensional space and, upon a user’s selec- tion of an object, displays the corresponding webpage in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. and Google LLC (to- gether, “Apple”) filed petitions for inter partes review chal- lenging claims 1-18 of the ’048 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because those products were covered by a license.
E.D. Tex.
August 28, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC’s First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12 (b)(1) (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #88). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case.
E.D. Tex.
August 28, 2026
Order
Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“ Defendant”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 83). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion and an affirmative finding that Plaintiff Edge Networking Systems LLC (“Edge”) has standing to assert the Asserted Patents1 in this case. (Dkt. No. 252). Defendant has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 255).
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to this court’s July 9, 2026 orders staying the above-captioned ap- peals and of DISH Network L.L.C. and DirecTV, LLC’s un- opposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal Nos. 2026- 1331 and 2026-1366, ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C. 3 IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The stay imposed by the July 9, 2026 orders is lifted. (2) The motion to dismiss is granted. Appeal Nos. 2026-1331, 2026-1366, and Appeal No.
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Precedential Opinion
AML IP, LLC (“AML”) sued Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. and The Buckle, Inc. (“Appellees”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979 (“the ’979 patent”). Each Appellee moved to dismiss—for both (1) improper venue and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, due to the ’979 patent’s claims being allegedly ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 The district court, in a single order, dismissed on both grounds.
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Precedential Opinion
T Mobile US, Inc. and T Mobile USA, Inc. (collectively, T Mobile) and patent owner KAIFI LLC (KAIFI) settled a lawsu-it in which KAIFI al-leged that T Mobile infringed se-veral claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728 (’728 patent). At the time of settlement, an ex parte reex-amination (EPR) of the ’728 patent, which T Mobile had initiated, was pend- ing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Pa- tent Office). Under the s-ettlement agreement, T Mobile agreed to make an immediate payment to KAIFI for a cer- tain amount, which it did.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendants Vivint LLC and Vivint, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #7) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case. On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Duke W. Zinser (“Plaintiff”) filed this action alleging that Defendants Vivint, LLC and Vivint, Inc. (collectively, “Vivint” or “Defendants”) has and continues to infringe one or more claim s of U.S.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Order
(CTO −1) On August 7, 2026, the Panel transferred 7 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3190, ECF No. 64 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable James Rodney Gilstrap.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s (“ Plaintiff” or “Gamba”) Renewed Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend its Infringement Contentions (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 87.) In the Motion, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its infringement contentions for U.S. Patent No. 9,961,507 (the “’507 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,772,193 (the “’193 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,674,684 (the “’684 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents .”) (Id.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Permanent Injunction (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Barco Inc. and Barco NV (“Barco”) . (Dkt. No. 250.) Having considered the Motion, all related briefing, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Barco filed the above- captioned case against Defendants Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink”) on November 14, 2023. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Order on Motion
2 ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC. v. ASCENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. O R D E R Having “entered a settlement agreement that resolves all claims between them” in this matter, ECF No. 14 at 8, the parties jointly move to remand this appeal in light of the district court’s August 5, 2026 indicative ruling that it would partially vacate and modify its March 6, 2026 final judgment if this court remanded.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from a final written deci- sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), reject- ing Apple’s arguments that claims 1-3 and 5 of Smart Mobile Technology LLC’s (“Smart Mobile’s”) U.S. Patent No. 9,319,075 (the“’075 patent”) are unpatentable as obvi- ous. We affirm. I Smart Mobile owns the ’075 patent, entitled “Wireless Devices with Transmission Control and Multiple Internet Protocol (IP) Based Paths of Communication.” J.A. 48.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in related inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of Smart Mobile Technologies LLC’s (“Smart Mobile’s”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,019,946 (the “’946 patent”) and 8,842,653 (the “’653 patent”) (together the “challenged patents”).
Fed. Cir.
August 26, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC (Zilkr) appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) final written decision (FWD) holding claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,254 unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Zilkr owns the ’254 patent, relating to a unified ser- vices platform that integrates various communication ser- vices for a user and uses the user’s telephone number as a common subscriber identifier. ’254 patent at Abstract, 1:15–19, 1:40–56.
Fed. Cir.
August 21, 2026
Precedential Opinion
______________________ AMANDA L'ESPERANCE, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by STEVEN R. DANIELS, Austin, TX. 2 US INVENTOR, INC. v. SQUIRES WEILI J. SHAW, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by YAAKOV ROTH; MICHAEL S. FORMAN, FAHD H. PATEL, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
Fed. Cir.
August 19, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
10x Genomics (“10x”) appeals final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) brought by Parse Biosciences, Inc. (“Parse”). The Board determined that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,155,981 (“the ’981 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,240,197 (“the ’197 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,697,013 (“the ’013 patent”), are unpatentable as ob- vious. Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. IPR2023-00876, 2024 WL 4218540, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2024) (“’981 Decision”); Parse Biosciences, Inc. v.
Fed. Cir.
August 19, 2026
Precedential Opinion
VDPP, LLC (VDPP) appeals orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (1) dismissing VDPP’s complaint without granting leave to amend, (2) awarding attorney fees to Volkswagen under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and (3) sanctioning VDPP’s counsel, Wil- liam Peterson Ramey, III. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part. BACKGROUND In 2023, VDPP, represented by Mr. Ramey, sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) for al- leged infringement of U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
August 18, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc. (“Westport”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,829 (the “’829 patent”) and 6,575,138 (the “’138 patent”), which relate to “an injection valve . . . which includes a passive hydraulic link.” J.A. 94 (’829 pat. 1:12-17), J.A. 111 (’138 pat. 1:16-21). Robert Bosch LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (together “Bosch”) filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of various claims of the ’829 and ’138 patents.
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Errata
Please make the following change: On page 3, footnote 1, change “permissible” to “imper- missible”
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC (collectively, “Jacki Easlick”) appeal two decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and re- consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns Jacki Easlick’s TOTE HANGER® brand handbag hanger hook (“Tote Hanger”), associated with U.S. Design Patent No. D 695,526 (“the D’526 pa- tent”).
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Precedential Opinion
TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243 (“’243 patent”), owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”). TVision relied on a publication authored by Ying-li Tian (“Tian”) as a prior-art reference. The Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“Board”) determined each challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over prior art combinations that included Tian.
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC (collectively, “Jacki Easlick”) appeal two decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and re- consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns Jacki Easlick’s TOTE HANGER® brand handbag hanger hook (“Tote Hanger”), associated with U.S. Design Patent No. D 695,526 (“the D’526 pa- tent”).
E.D. Tex.
August 13, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Micron and Avnet to Produce Venue - Related Discovery (“Motion”) . (Dkt. No. 85.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Venue A patent infringement case may only be brought in a proper venue. 28 U.S.C.
Fed. Cir.
August 12, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R In response to a patent infringement suit brought by Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd., Canadian Solar, Inc. (“CSI”) com- menced the underlying inter partes review (“IPR”) proceed- ing. CSI appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 was not 2 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. MAXEON SOLAR PTE. LTD. shown to be unpatentable. Maxeon now moves to dismiss the appeal as moot in view of its “unilateral covenant not to sue” CSI for infringement. ECF No. 6 at 21.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Order
Before the Cou rt are several related motions, memorandum orders and a report and recommendation. Plaintiffs ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., Celerity IP, LLC, Innovative Sonic Limited (“Plaintiffs”), and Third Party Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. ( “ASUSTeK”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Breach of FRAND Claims (“MSJ”). (Dkt. No. 611). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions to Exclude the Supplemental Opinions of Drs. Van der Weide, Villasenor, Wicker, Ms. Kindler, and Mr. Melin. (Dkt. Nos. 990, 991, 992, 993, 994). This Order sets forth the Court’s rulings and reasoning and provides additional instructions to the parties as necessary. I.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants /Intervenors’ Motion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 for Determination That the ETSI Contract Applies to Plaintiffs’ Patents Essential to Optional Portions of a Cellular Standard. Dkt. No. 578. The Motion is fully briefed. (See Dkt. Nos. 622, 691, 759). “Defendants ask the Court under Rule 44.1 to hold that the ETSI IPR Policy’s FRAND contract applies to Plaintiffs’ patents that are essential to optional portions of the 4G and 5G cellular standards.” Id. at 1–2; see id. at 12.
Fed. Cir.
August 11, 2026
Precedential Opinion
O R D E R Range of Motion Products, LLC filed a petition for re- hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Armaid Company Inc. Industrial De- signers Society of America, Inc., Institute for Design Sci- ence and Public Policy, Oake Law Office, PLLC, American Intellectual Property Law Association, and Perry Saidman requested leave to file briefs as amici curiae, which the court granted.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
iCharts LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of Tableau Software, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Appellant iCharts LLC (“iCharts”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,271,892 (“’892 patent”), 8,520,000 (“’000 patent”), and 9,712,595 (“’595 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The ’892 patent claims priority to a 2008 provi- sional application. J.A. 79, 1:7–9.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent 10,755,409 (“the ’409 patent”) had been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2023-1369, 2025 WL 676732 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2025), J.A. 1–84 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
VL Collective IP, LLC (“VideoLabs”) appeals the October 2, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–24 of VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (“the ’559 patent”) are unpatentable. Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. IPR2023-00630, 2024 WL 4374920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2024), J.A. 1–60. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The ’559 patent is generally directed to “controlling the flow of content” between a content provider (“server”) and a user’s device (“terminal”).
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s (“Gamba”) First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Dkt. No. 38.) Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Gamba filed the above -captioned case against Samsung on April 25, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Infringement Report of Dr. Madisetti Regarding the ’814 Patent (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 185.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the nuanced means-plus-function claim constructions that are at issue, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff NEC Corporation (“NEC”) sued Defendants Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations L td. ( collectively, “Anker”) , accusing them of infringing six U.S. patents. (Dkt.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ and Intervenors’ Motion to Exclude the Supplemental Damages Opinions of Dr. Gary Lomp (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 947). The Motion is fully briefed pursuant to the Court’s instructions. (See Dkt. No. 885). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion. I.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendants Infringe Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,359 (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 601). In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment that Defendants infringe Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,359 (the “’359 Patent”). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment No. 7 Regarding Plaintiffs’ Declaratory Judgment Claims (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants and Intervenors. (Dkt. No. 594). In the Motion, Defendants and Intervenors move for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs ’ claims for declaratory judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment #6: Plaintiffs’ Failure to Mark Precludes Pre-Suit Damages for the Asserted Claims of the ’489, ’868, ’359, ’754 and ’402 Patents (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 593). The Motion is fully briefed. ( See Dkt. Nos. 655, 715, 779). Defendants argue that they satisfied their initial burden of identifying unmarked products under Arctic Cat , Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
Fed. Cir.
August 7, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
WAG Acquisition, LLC (“WAG”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding claims 1 and 4 of its U.S. Patent No. 2 IN RE WAG ACQUISITION, LLC 8,327,011 (the “’011 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,005,600 (“Hill”). We affirm. I WAG owns the ’011 patent, which is entitled “Stream- ing Media Buffering System.” J.A. 235.
Fed. Cir.
August 6, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Ravin Crossbows, LLC (Ravin) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) hold- ing claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,015 unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ravin owns the ’015 patent, which relates to archery bows and crossbows, wherein rotatable string guides are in tension with the draw string that drives an arrow. ’015 pa- tent at Abstract, 1:66–2:23. Claim 1 is at issue: 1.
E.D. Tex.
August 5, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Expert Report of Dr. Alyssa Apsel. Dkt. No. 165. In its Motion, Defendant seeks to supplement the report of its technical expert, Dr. Alyssa Apsel, to address a new prior art reference, the Micron U48a DRAM (“U48a”). Defendant contends that the reference was first produced pursuant to a third- party subpoena on June 2, 2026. Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. I.
Fed. Cir.
August 5, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
______________________ AARON PATRICK BOWLING, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also rep- resented by MICHAEL JOSEPH HARRIS, CHRISTOPHER J. RENK; MICHAEL J. SEBBA, Los Angeles, CA; JONATHAN SWISHER, San Francisco, CA. SETH W. LLOYD, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by BRIAN 2 NIKE, INC. v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA CANADA INC. ROBERT MATSUI; MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ALEX S. YAP, Los An- geles, CA; KYLE W.K. MOONEY, New York, NY.
Fed. Cir.
August 4, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Import Global, LLC (Import Global) appeals the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring I mport Global from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, or im- porting into the United States its Neat Socket® product. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and remand for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Socket Solutions, LLC (Socket Solutions) owns U.S. Pa- tent No.
Fed. Cir.
August 4, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Scilex”), Itochu Chemical Frontier Corp. (“Itochu”), and Oishi Koseido Co., Ltd. (“Oi- shi”) (collectively, the “Scilex plaintiffs”) appeal a final judgment of non-infringement entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Scilex is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
August 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
MPH Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Apple of in- fringing various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,346,949; 9,762,397; 9,712,494; 9,712,502; and 9,838,362 (collec- tively, the “ ’949 patent family ”); as well as U.S. Patent No. 7,937,581.
Fed. Cir.
August 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Amazon.com Services LLC (Amazon) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to stay these patent infringement proceedings. Headwater Re- search LLC (Headwater) opposes. Amazon replies. For the reasons below, we deny the petition. On August 27, 2025, Headwater filed two suits at the center of this petition.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
The Regents of the University of Michigan (“Michigan”) appeals from a decision of the U .S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting Leica Microsys- tems, Inc.’s (“Leica”) motion for summary judgment of non- infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,277 ,169 (“the ’169 patent”), which relates to fluorescence detection sys- tems for samples having fluorophores, a type of fluorescent marker.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Order on Motion
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACK H. DOVEY, JR., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1467 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in No. 2:25-cv-00730-DGE, Chief Judge David G. Estudillo.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
This case comes back to us after we previously re- manded it for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) to consider, in its inter partes review (“IPR”) pro- ceeding, the patentability of proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 of Pfizer Inc.’s (“Pfizer’s”) U.S. Patent 9,492,559 (“the ’559 patent”). On remand, the Board determined in a final written decision that those proposed substitute claims would have been obvious over certain prior art publications and therefore denied Pfizer’s motion to amend its claims. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. v.
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Schmeisser GmbH (Schmeisser) appeals orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (1) constru- ing certain distance -related claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,866,045 as indefinite, (2) granting partial summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement in favor of AC- Unity d.o.o. (AC-Unity), and (3) dissolving a preliminary injunction previously entered by the court against AC - Unity. We reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(LOURIE, PROST, and STARK, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 30, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
G+ Communications, LLC (“G+”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision by the U.S. Pa- tent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130 (“the ’130 patent”) are unpatentable. For the following rea- sons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I The ’130 patent claims a method and device for coding uplink signal transmission applicable to 5G mobile commu- nications systems. ’130 patent Abstract; see Appellant’s Br. 2, 5.
E.D. Tex.
July 28, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On July 8, 2026, the C ourt held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms U.S. Patent Nos. 7,822,841 (“’841 Patent”); 8,352,584 (“’584 Patent”); 7,721,282 (“’282 Patent”); 7,712,080 (“’080 Pate nt”); and 11,032,000 (“’000 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).1 Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their supplemental claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos.
E.D. Tex.
July 27, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendant FleetMind Seon Solutions Inc’s (“FleetMind”) Motion to Change Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. No. 40. In its Motion, Defendant seeks transfer to the Central District of California (“CDCA”) in light of Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, which stem from a sales presentation featuring the accused product to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”). Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD A.
Fed. Cir.
July 27, 2026
Precedential Opinion
The Board of Regents of the University of Texas (UT) owns United States Patent No. 6,596,296. The patent de- scribes and claims a composition (for use, e.g., in an im- plant) containing a drug-releasing biodegradable polymer fiber—a fiber in which a therapeutic agent is dispersed. In 2017, UT sued Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), accus- ing BSC of infringing certain claims of the ’296 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing BSC’s drug-eluting coronary stent systems.
Fed. Cir.
July 24, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Amsted Rail Co., Inc. (Amsted) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) de- termining certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,137,915 (’915 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and deny- ing Amsted’s motion to amend. Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co., Inc., No. IPR2023-00540, 2024 WL 3678789 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (Decision). We see no error in the Board’s claim construction, factual findings, or de- nial of the motion to amend. We affirm.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (Dkt. # 62). Having considered the M otion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED . BACKGROUND I. Factual Background and Procedural History This is a patent infringement case. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiffs WAPP Tech Limited Partnership and WAPP Tech Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “WAPP”) filed this action asserting that Defendant Apple Inc.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion to Stay this Action Pending Final Disposition of Asserted Claims Challenged in Proceedings Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”). (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff Emerging Automotive LLC (“Emerging Auto”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. No. 45.) Consolidated Defendants Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Motion to Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e) to Include Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited (“Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. No. 359.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the above -captioned suit against Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“BOE”) on November 8, 2023, alleging infringement of six patents. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Moarbes, LLP (“Mo arbes”), which represented FrenchPorte IP LLC (“French Porte”) in the underlying case, appeals the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois ordering Moarbes to pay fifty percent of a $46,438.60 sanctions award for repeated fail- ures to comply with court orders. FrenchPorte IP, LLC v. C.H.I. Overhead Doors, Inc. , No. 2:21- cv-2014, 2024 WL 1307790 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2024) (“Sanctions Order”).
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Ceiva Opco, LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of Ama- zon.com, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of ineligibil- ity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND I. At issue in this appeal are four representative claims from four patents: claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573 (“’573 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,203,930 (“’930 patent”), claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,654,562 (“’562 pa- tent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) found a 19 U.S.C. § 1337 violation based on Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC’s infringement of 2 CARTESSA AESTHETICS, LLC v. ITC Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was to expire on March 29, 2026. Following patent expiration, Cartessa moves to consolidate its appeals, dismiss them as moot, and vacate the final determination. The Commission does not oppose.
Showing the 100 most recent of 12,259 opinions (current through September 21, 2026). Browse the complete archive by year, or use the filters above (JavaScript required).